Ramesh cites as an example the recent Senate fight over the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. According to Ramesh, Republicans seemed to be more interested in punishing those Republican senators who refused to continue the filibuster against consideration of Hagel’s nomination than in attacking the Administration for selecting Hagel in the first place.
Set aside the merits and think about the politics. Which course makes more sense for Republicans opposed to Hagel? Attacking the Democrats who supported him for being soft on defense and Israel? Or attacking Republicans who voted against him for not opposing him strongly enough? The question answers itself.
Naturally, he [Ponnuru] fails to acknowledge the anti-Hagel campaign was a perfect example of how the GOP has been “trying to kick people out rather than bring people in.” It was from start to finish an effort for all intents and purposes to expel Hagel from party, and to reject anyone that might have sympathized with even some of his mild dissents on foreign policy. It was exactly the sort of self-destructive, ideologically-driven stupidity that Republican reformers normally find so objectionable, but on matters of foreign policy and national security they prove to be just as clueless.
Afterwords
It would be nice if liberals were measurably better on these issues, but that’s rare. Big name libs like Paul Krugman and Jon Chait basically pretend that the rest of the world doesn’t exist. Obama is murdering innocent women and children all around the world you say, inflicting, and inciting, more terror than he’s suppressing? And your point is …?
